Will GOP presidential hopefuls fail to KO wobbly Obama?

Point: Yes. Counterpoint: Maybe

November 09, 2011|Dennis Byrne

To Dennis,

from Eric

What does it tell you that, even though the economy is apparently stuck in the doldrums and President Barack Obama's base is dispirited and his popularity ratings underwhelming, I still confidently predict he'll be re-elected?

Not that I'm a besotted partisan.

But that your side — I'll lump you with the Republicans for the purposes of discussion, if that's all right — seems almost certain to nominate a candidate whose platitudinous pronouncements appeal to the far-right wing and who's given to utterances that are contradictory, fact-challenged or just plain wacky.

I feel your pain. Eight years ago, incumbent Republican President George W. Bush was facing serious head winds. The war in Iraq was looking increasingly endless and misbegotten, and the U.S. had just posted a record budget deficit. In most polls he was losing to a generic Democrat by 2 to 6 percentage points, but he was beating the actual, uninspiring Democrats in every head-to-head poll.

You'll smile to remember Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, John Edwards and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, a stiff from Massachusetts with a good resume but a reputation as a flip-flopper.

Similarly, Obama tends to lose to generic Republicans in polls (by 8 percent in a Gallup survey last month, for instance) and almost always beats the actual, disquieting Republicans in head-to-head polls.

I'm smiling as I list them: Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain. And the likely nominee at this point, Mitt Romney, a stiff from Massachusetts with a good resume but a reputation as a flip-flopper.

How much do you fear that I'm right when I suggest history will repeat itself?

To Eric,

from Dennis

Darn, there you go, making me pay attention to a presidential campaign that I've been studiously ignoring for more than a year.

Hard to believe, isn't it? The presidential campaign started the day after last year's election and two full years before the next one. I have to admit that I am so tired of it that I have yet to watch a single GOP presidential debate. Yeah, I know, that could get my pundit's license yanked, something that allows me to pretend that I'm all-seeing and all-knowing.

But, I feel — and I think many Americans also feel — that they have been dragged to a bloody dogfight, to watch a cavalcade of hopefuls get their butts chewed but good. Like bubbles rising from the gloomy depths (can I toss in another metaphor here?), each Republican suddenly appears on the surface, only to pop.

The latest — as of this writing and who knows when the next bubble will appear and pop — is Cain, who is done, done, done. That's thanks in part to the media and political opponents who were there waiting with needles to make sure he'd burst.

Blame the dismal field of candidates if you must for my ennui. But I think it's more the result of watching too many decades of this ever more dogged scrutiny given to candidates and the coarsening of their campaigns.

I'm not trying to avoid your question. You're right, Republican chances are growing longer each day. I admire your confidence in Obama's re-election, but that thought alone might be enough to shake me and a whole lot of Americans out of our lethargy.

To Dennis,

from Eric

I'll be glum if Cain is already done, done, done, though each passing day now seems to make that more likely. He combines the superficiality of Sarah Palin, the gaffe-generating capability of Perry, the naivete of Paul, the malleability of Romney, the arrogance of Ross Perot and, allegedly, the randiness of Bill Clinton.

Great column material, in other words. So I'm hoping it's later and not sooner that GOP voters will realize Cain's so obviously unsuited for the presidency that nominating him would be as good as conceding the election to Obama.

Because as much as Republicans would like voters to see next November's election as an up-or-down referendum on Obama's performance — a referendum he'd likely lose if the vote were taken today, if his sub-50 approval ratings are any guide — voters will all but certainly see it as a choice.

Will they prefer to let Obama keep trying to bring the nation out of this long and painful recession? Will they prefer to let the Republican nominee take a crack at it? Or will they prefer to stay home on Election Day, having been so dispirited by the vicious and petty campaign that they figure it doesn't really matter who wins?

What's the case for replacing Obama? That he's not worked a miracle with the disastrous economy he inherited from Bush? That he insufficiently trusts the tender mercies of Wall Street and corporate America to take good care of working people and the environment? That he still believes in universal health care coverage, progressive taxation and the necessity of government to smooth out the road, particularly in such bumpy times?